Delhi High court warns overcrowded colleges risk quality education loss

The Delhi High Court said that an excessive number of seats in a college would not only put strain on the infrastructure that is already in place but also hinder the institution's capacity to provide its students with a high-quality education.

The court made this statement in response to St. Stephen's College's argument that Delhi University had excessively distributed seats rather than assigning students in violation of the approved intake.

The university claims that it was done for convenience because, typically, not all students are admitted, leaving some seats empty.

“This court is further of the view that the appellant’s (Stephen’s College) argument that excessive allocation has been made by the university has not been rebutted with specificity by the university,” the court said.

“This court would like the university to appreciate that excess allocations of seats in a college would not only create a burden on the available limited infrastructure but would also impair the ability of the college to impart quality education to its students. Such action could also jeopardize the careers of young students,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.

Despite having been passed on August 29, the order was posted on the court's website on August 30.

The college was appealing a single judge's temporary decision requiring the provisional admission of six students in line with the varsity's allotment, and the division bench was considering their appeal.

The bench indicated that even though the sole judge's judgment from Aug 23 ordered these students to be allowed provisional admission, they believed the ruling essentially gave the relief that they had requested in their original petition.

However, it moved up the hearing date for the petition that is still ongoing before the single judge from September 11 to September 5 and ordered the six students to not attend the class until the plea is resolved.

“Since the final hearing before the single judge has been expedited and with a view to balancing the equities, this court directs that till the disposal of the writ petition, the respondents no. 1 to 6 (six students) shall not attend the classes at the appellant college,” the bench said.

Senior attorney Romy Chacko, who was representing the college during the hearing, said that the college is highly sought after, that students who are assigned to different study programs typically accept any course that is provided, and that there are rarely or never any openings beyond the initial allotment.

He said that the university had conceded to restrict extra funding to the college to 5% of each program after protests against the policy.

The senior attorney argued that the university had allocated additional students in violation of the agreement.

In representing the institution, advocate Mohinder JS Rupal said just 5% of the available seats in the college are designated for unreserved students.

The varsity was also reprimanded by the court for enrolling more students in the institution than was permitted.

“The university must understand that they are playing with the students’ careers. You are not playing a game of chess that you are settling for. It is a very serious matter,” the division bench observed orally.

It added, “Don’t do this with students; this will affect their careers. Tell this to the university; this is not good. We hope that better sense will prevail.”

Six undergraduate candidates were given relief by the single judge, who also noted that they had fulfilled all other requirements and passed the Common University Entrance Test (CUET).